UNITED NATIONS,
March 10 – On the North Korea
- Trump talks by May announced
on March 8, it's said US
National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster is going to brief the
UN Security Council on Monday,
March 12, and meet with UN
Secretary General Antonio
Guterres at 3 pm, without even
a photo spray at the top. Amid
that murk, one view of where
(and when) a Trump meeting
with Kim Jong Un should take
place was voice March 9 by
none other than John Bolton:
by the end of March, in
Geneva. Bolton said it should
be in the same "former League
of Nations" conference room
where James Baker met Tariq
Aziz in January 1991 before
Operation Desert Storm, the
so-called extra mile for
peace. Others throw out
locations like Pyongyang, New
York, Seoul, Tokyo (if Trump
wants to throw Abe a bone, see
below) or even
Mar-a-Lago. The timing
of Trump's meeting with Bolton
shortly before the North Korea
talks were announced bears
more reporting. At the UN by
mid-morning on March 9, this
was not listed on the Security
Council's online Program of
Work. Photo here.
In Japan, no longer on the
Security Council, media like
the Sankei Shimbun complained
instead about the issue of abductees
and about Trump's dissing of
Japan on tariffs,
while using wire or "joint"
copy on the Florida
gun bill, UN
Women's Day and even on UN
Secretary General Antonio
Guterres' canned
statement. From Seoul, Kato's
successor Norio Sakurai warned
of Japan being "peeled off."
Similarly, in North Korea
itself the ostensibly agreed
to talks weren't even yet
disclosed to the public.
Working at the UN, Inner City
Press asked the spokesman for
Miroslav Lajcak, President of
the UN General Assembly, for
comment on the North Korea
talks. By evening, this was
sent to Inner City Press: "The
President supports dialogue as
well as efforts to
denuclearize the Koran
Peninsula." Earlier, Inner
City Press asked the Dutch
President of the Council for
the month, Karel van Oosterom,
who told Inner City Press he
has been invited to a meeting
with McMaster but for more to
ask the US. In DC the
questions were about McMaster
leaving the Administration,
with a less than rousing
defense by the spokesperson.
When the UN Spokesman called
his end of day (and week) lid,
there was mention of another
Security Council meeting for
Monday, but nothing on North
Korea. Meanwhile, when UN
Secretary General Antonio
Guterres belatedly commented
17 hours after the
announcement, his spokesman
Stephane Dujarric went on to
link to the slated talks the
earlier visit to Pyongyang by
outgoing UN Department of
Political Affairs chief
Jeffrey Feltman. But is the
connection? And when Feltman
leaves on March 31, who will
the US put in, particularly
given developments on and in
North Korea? Watch this site.
Back on March 8, half
an hour after
South Korean official
Chung Eui-yong
announced at
the White
House that US
President
Trump will
meet North
Korea's Kim
Jong Un by
May, Inner
City Press
after
informing the
UN's
Department of
Public
Information
sought
reaction from
Secretary
General
Antonio
Guterres.
Since, despite
Inner City
Press'
request, all
UN Department
of Public
Information
minders had
left for the
day, Inner
City Press
retreated to
the Conference
Building where
a Chinese
opera, as it
happens, was
taking place.
But when
Guterres and
his entourage
came off the
elevator,
Inner City
Press
approached, at
the same time
as one of
Guterres'
female
Assistant SGs
he'd met with.
Guterres,
chatting with
a youth,
ignored even
her. Video here. Did he know the news?
Inner City
Press followed
up by Twitter:
nothing. This
is today's
UN. Two
cars were at
the ready, and
two security
officers faced
Inner City
Press. (One
said that yet
a third
officer
"wanted to
file a
complaint
against your
story," here).
There was the
sound of
opera, and
down the hall
a painting of
Ban Ki-moon,
who
accomplished
nothing on the
issue in ten
years. It was
the UN. The
next morning, still nothing
from Guterres. Finally after
17 hours, this canned
statement from his spokesman:
"The Secretary-General is
encouraged by the announcement
of an agreement between the
United States and the
Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea to hold a summit
meeting by May. He commends
the leadership and vision of
all concerned and reiterates
his support for all efforts
towards peaceful
denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula in accordance with
relevant Security Council
resolutions." And now
re-emerge reports
about North Korea "state
actors" hacking the UN's Panel
of Experts and its members.
But the reports fail to
mention that UN Secretary
General and his outgoing head
of Political Affairs Jeffrey
Feltman allowed into the UN's
own Department of Political
Affairs a North Korean state
actor, the son of a Workers
Party official. (Inner City
Press exclusively reported
the name, Kim
Joo Song). If
UN DPA, in
charge of the
sanctions
committees'
panels of
experts, let a
sanctioned
countries
state actor in
as a staff
member /
junior
professional
officer, how
surprising is
it? The worst
is that is
wasn't
idealistic
multilateralism
that led to
the hire, DPA
whistleblowers
tell Inner
City Press,
but rather
Guterres' vain
desire to see
himself in
Pyongyang, a
diplomatic
victory at
last as he
ignores the
suffering in
places like
western
Cameroon. In
the face of North Korea
sanctions, the UN in December
2017 used the sanctioned
Foreign Trade Bank and
Russia's Sputnik Bank to
release EUR 3,974,920.62 into
the country, documents
obtained by Inner City Press
and exclusively published on
February 21 show. On February
21, Inner City Press asked the
Dutch chair of the UN Security
Council's 1718 Sanctions
committee about the exemption.
He refused to comment, saying
the issue did not come up in
the meeting he had just
exited. Video here,
but see below. Now amid
renewed focus in the lead up
to the belated release of the
UN Panel of Experts report,
the Washington Post has done a
deep dive
into North Korea's laundering
of coal: " The
Togolese-flagged Yu Yuan and
the Panamanian-flagged Sky
Angel, both Chinese owned,
were among two separate sets
of cargo vessels that passed
in and out of Kholmsk harbor
in late summer and early fall
of last year, carrying coal
that at least partly
originated in North Korean
mines" - and ended up, the
report goes on, in South Korea
and Japan. This while Japanese
media, particularly those
ostensibly most hard line, go
soft not only on the UN (see
below) but also on Japan's own
Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi,
which turned a blind computer
eye to business with North
Korea, then fled the New York
regulator while being
investigated, see below. Also
now amid renewed focus on
Sisi's Egypt as purchaser and
selling-place for North Korean
weapons, US President Donald
J. Trump on March 4 spoke with
Sisi, and the US issued this,
without even a mention with
North Korea: "President Donald
J. Trump spoke today with
President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi
of Egypt. President
Trump and President Al Sisi
discussed opportunities to
enhance the American-Egyptian
partnership on a range of
security and economic
issues. The leaders
discussed Russia and Iran’s
irresponsible support of the
Assad regime’s brutal attacks
against innocent
civilians. President
Trump and President Al Sisi
agreed to work together on
ending the humanitarian crisis
in Syria and achieving Arab
unity and security in the
region." And not the 30,000
RPGs? A new light is cast on
UN Secretary General Antonio
Guterres' "very very warm
regards" for Sisi this week,
in a credentialing ceremony
which Guterres' close
protection ordered Inner City
Press to stop recording, here.
Thirty thousand rocket
propelled grenades could
generally quite a bit of
warmth - the last Panel of
Experts report cited "the Jie
Shun, a vessel commanded by a
Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea captain that was en
route from the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea
towards the Suez Canal. A
search revealed a cargo
containing 30,000 PG-7 rocket
propelled grenades and related
subcomponents in wooden crates
concealed under about 2,300
tonnes of limonite." In terms
of Guterres' Lusophone
world, the last PoE report
said that "at the time of the
Panel’s visit [to Angola], 12
nationals of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea
were providing martial arts
and parade ground training.
The Panel informed Angolan
agencies that continuation of
the training would constitute
a violation of paragraph 9 of
resolution 2270 (2016), which
clarified the prohibition on
the hosting of personnel from
the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea for security
force training, established
under resolution 1874... the
Panel enquired with the
Government of Angola as to
whether they had departed the
country. The Panel has yet to
receive a reply." The new
report has yet to go on the
Committee's website. On March
2, before the silence
procedure expired on the
United States' request to add
to the sanctions list 27
companies, one individual and
33 ships, silence was broken
by China and the listing did
not proceed. This as the UN
has held off sanctioning
Chinese banks like China
Merchants Bank, and China
Construction
Bank
Corporation, Industrial
and Commercial Bank of China,
and Agricultural
Bank of China
for
their business with Dandong
Hongxiang
Industrial
Development.
But how will it, and the UN
more generally be covered
going forward? Day to day
those most interested in the
UN's 1718 committee are
Japanese media. While
certainly predisposed to
reporting on any moves by
China, less scrutiny is given
to the UN itself. Perhaps this
is because of Japan's long and
unrequited desire for a
permanent seat on the Security
Council, pursued without
effect by playing nice with
the UN. Consider a recent profile
of Secretary General Antonio
Guterres by the Sankei
Shimbun, casting Guterres and
more decisive than his
predecessor Ban Ki-moon. One,
that's not saying much. Two,
along the same lines, Ban at
least audited the Ng Lap Seng
UN bribery case,
something Guterres has yet to
do with the larger China
Energy Fund Committee / CEFC
China Energy UN bribery
scandal, with the company now taken
over by the Shanghai
government. Three, the
combative or defensive
approach to China is mirrored
by one by South Korea,
particularly as that country
refuses to give up on the
issue of comfort women used by
Japan in World War II.
Notably, the misogyny is
replicated in the microcosm of
the United Nations. The same
publication has had its #MeToo
moments, in and out of
Manhattan (female
correspondents it is said are
not allowed to have children
during their deployments);
local hires regardless of
years of effective service are
threatened with termination
for not immediately dropping
their young children. As the
law has evolved in the United
States that could of course be
turned around. We'll have more
on this - and on this: on
March 2 a spokesperson for the
chair of the Committee told
Inner City Press, "As chair of
1718 committee we cannot
comment on internal committee
issues." Inner City Press has
asked why the delegation,
president of the Security
Council for March, doesn't
have a public schedule and
read-outs, like the President
of the General Assembly does.
We'll have more on this.
Meanwhile a complaint to the
Committee by Japan about a
Maldives flagged ship Xin Yuan
18 has drawn return fire from
the embattled
government of President
Yameen: "No such vessel is
registered in the country,"
his Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said in a statement on
Wednesday. 'Further we
condemn, in the strongest
possible terms, the use of our
National Flag in a manner so
as to tarnish the good
standing and reputation of our
nation and that of our people.
The Maldivian authorities do
not allow flag of convenience
to foreign owned vessels to
operate outside Maldivian
waters,' the statement added.
The Government of Maldives
gives high priority to the
implementation of all
resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council,
including the Resolutions on
Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (North Korea). The
Administration is currently
investigating the matter and
wishes to make clear that the
Maldives will pursue
aggressive action against any
such acts which affects the
National Identity in such a
detrimental manner." Inner
City Press has asked the
chairmanship if Maldives has
formally responded to the
Committee; separately, the
Panel of Experts' report is
due on March 14, photo here.
Japan said that 'at midnight
on February 24, 2018, a P-3C
aircraft of Japan Maritime
Self-Defense Force (Fleet Air
Wing 1 P-3C : Kanoya) found
that Chon Ma San, North
Korean-flagged tanker, was
lying alongside Xin Yuan 18,
Maldivian-flagged tanker, on
the high sea (around 250 km
eastern offshore of Shanghai )
in the East China Sea. Judging
from the fact that the two
vessels lay alongside each
other with their lights turned
on at night, both vessels
could have been engaged in
some type of activity.
Following a comprehensive
assessment, the Government of
Japan strongly suspects that
they conducted ship-to-ship
transfers banned by UNSCR."
Meanwhile in the matter Inner
City Press is exclusively
pursuing, a letter from
Sputnik Bank stated that
"unauthorized person (I.V.
Tonkih) led negotiations
with Korean party on interbank
correspondent relationship."
Photos here,
more documents in PDF now
published on Patreon, here.
On February 22, Inner City
Press asked UN Secretary
General Antonio Guterres'
spokesman Stephane Dujarric
about how Sputnik Bank, given
its admission, was selected,
and then additional questions
in writing, below - which
Dujarric would not answer or
confirm. Video here.

From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to
ask you quickly about a thing
in North Korea. I've
learned yesterday and
published the documents of a
waiver sought by the UN
system, he UN Resident
Coordinator, Tapan Mishra. To
use a, some say little-known,
but, in any case, not a
prominent Russian bank as a
correspondent bank to send €4
million into North Korea in
December. And I wanted
to know, first of all, how is
the bank… there's a document
that's… that's part of the
request that shows that the
Russian bank acknowledges that
an unauthorized person even
negotiated the correspondent
bank relationship. How
does the UN system choose
which correspondent bank to
use? And is this
comment… is this… it seemed
like they presented this as an
emergency for third-quarter
disbursements of 4 million
euros into North
Korea…Spokesman: Listen,
I don't know the details of
the agreement. What I do
know is that the UN operates,
has humanitarian presence and
has a presence in
Pyongyang. We abide… the
DPRK [Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea], as you
know, is under very strict
sanctions from the Security
Council, which include issues
of the banking sector.
We do need to get money to pay
staff and to run our
programmes. I think it's
only normal that we go through
the Sanctions Committee to get
the waivers. We don't
want to be… obviously, the
Secretariat doesn't want to be
in violation of Security
Council resolutions. To
say that dealing with the
banking sector in terms of
banks that are willing to do
business legitimately in the
DPRK is challenging would
probably be an
understatement. But
whatever rules there are, I
have no doubt that they were
followed. Inner City
Press: So, simple
question, is this… is this put
out… is there a procurement
for this? I'm asking you
because there's some questions
about how the bank was
selected even from… their own
documents acknowledge some
irregularities. So how…
can you look? Spokesman:
As I said, I don't have
further details. I can
look into it, but I know we're
working in a very challenging
environment in trying to
follow the rules and
regulations to the 'T.'"
To the T? Inner City Press has
also aske in writing, "Please
state the total of funds the
UN system (including
specifically the agencies
named in the Resident
Coordinator's request)
transferred in 2017 to DPRK,
including total for program
use (development assistance)
and total for UN use
(maintenance, local salaries,
etc). When was the last audit
of UN activities in North
Korea / DPRK done? There will
be more." In 2017
then-chairman of the UN
Security Council's 1718 /
North Korea sanctions
committee Sebastiano Cardi of
Italy informed Sputnik Bank to
release the nearly EUR 4
million to the Foreign Trade
Bank - the very entity for
dealing with Latvia's ABLV
Bank has been sanctioned by
the United States.

Previously, Cardi by letter
had, according to UN Resient
Coordinator Tapan Mishra,
neglected to "make clear
reference to the need for cash
withdrawal." The Treasurer of
the UN Development Program
Paul Gravanese then asked
Cardi for wider authorization
for FTB to withdraw funds.
This only concerned the third
quarter of 2017 - what has
been done since? The new
chairman declined to say.

Others
say, the UN has fixed nothing,
sweeps everything uner the
rug. Earlier this month
when Inner City Press asked if
the Committee's rulings on
request for exemptions, and
the underlying requests
themselves, are placed on the
Committee's website or
otherwise made public. The
answer was and is no.
Inner City Press will have
more in this exclusive series. Media paid to
cover the UN too often let it
off the hook, on issues from
North Korea to UN corruption
to most recently automatic
weapons. The UN has been the
venue for bribes paid from
Macau based operative Ng Lap
Seng and now Patrick Ho of the
China Energy Fund Committee -
but on February 13 in the same
basement the North Korea
sanctions committee meets in
the UN allowed an Indonesia
based weapons company to
advertise not only machine
guns and drones but even tanks
inside the UN. Periscope video
here.
But when the Japanese media
paid to cover the UN belatedly
chime in on gun control, like
Sankei Shimbun's Mayu Uetsuka
here,
they ignored the UN's total
failure in even advertising
guns after the Florida
shooting. They could have
covered it, and still could;
their Mr Tatsuya Kato in South
Korea, whom Inner City Press
supported here
and here,
and also in Sankei, proves
there is something to support
on a free Press basis. But. As
the North
Korea UN
sanctions
"experts"
report
continues to
be cherry
picked further
and further
down the food
chain, now
that North
Korea paid its
2017 UN dues
by means of a
swap is also ignored,
like
the recent
report focused
on coal,
pointing the
finger at
Vietnam,
Russia, China,
Vietnam and
South Korea.
Omitted,
apparently
intentionally,
are violations
by Japanese
companies,
like Bank of
Tokyo
Mitsubishi, as
Inner City
Press has reported.
It is facts
chucked or
thrown, rather
than fact
checked. How
far will
today's UN go
to placate
some
countries,
while ignoring
others and restricting
the Press? On
January 26 UN
"global
communications"
chief Alison
Smale flew to
Charleston,
South Carolina
for a photo op
and UNTV video
with China's
Xiamen
Airlines for
having
painting the
UN's "SDGs"
logo on the
side of an
airplane. This
without having
answered Press
questions
about her
Department of
Public
Information's
malfeasance
with resources
allocated by
the General
Assembly for Kiswahili
and about the
lack under her
"leadership"
of any content
neutral UN
media access
rules.
Afterward,
when Inner
City Press
asked for the
mp4 video
of her South
Carolina
junket - Inner
City Press is
informed that
the plane she
celebrated
could not in
fact fly - it
was told to
"Ask UN
Webcast,"
which is under
Smale. They
were asked -
and have not
given the
video. Nor has
Smale offered
any response
to a detailed
petition
two weeks ago,
while
re-tweeting
her former
employer the
NYT and
current boss
Antonio
Guterres. But
who is making
who look bad?
And how can a
former NYT
editor have no
content
neutral media
access rules,
and no
answers? As
she restricts
Inner City Press from its
UN reporting on
Cameroon,
Myanmar,
Kenya,
Yemen
and elsewhere?
We'll
have more on
this. While
any country
would try to
get the UN to
promote its
airline, if
the UN would
do it, Smale
is the UN
official who
responsible
for Inner City
Press being
restricted and
evicted as it
reports on the
UN bribery
scandal of
Patrick Ho and
China Energy
Fund
Committee.
Smale hasn't
even deigned
to answer
petitions in
this regard,
in September
(she said she
recognized the
need for the
"courtesy" of
a response,
never given)
and in
January --
too busy
flying to
South Carolina
to promote an
airline:

Today's
UN of Antonio Guterres, who
just met
with ICC indictee Omar al
Bashir, and his Deputy Amina
J. Mohammed who has refused
Press questions
on her rosewood signatures
and now the refoulement of 47
people to Cameroon from "her"
Nigeria, has become a place of
corruption and censorship. On
January 30 as Inner City Press
sought to complete its
reporting for the day on
Guterres' Bashir meeting and
Mohammed's Cameroon no-answer,
it had a problem. It was
invited to the month's UN
Security Council president's
end of presidency reception,
6:30 to 8:30 - but with its
accreditation reduced by
censorship, it could not get
back into the UN after 7 pm,
to the already delayed UN
video. It ran to at least
enter the reception - but the
elevator led to a jammed
packed third floor, diplomats
lined up to shake the outgoing
UNSC president's hand. Inner
City Press turn to turn tail
back to the UN, passing on its
way favored, pro-UN
correspondents under no such
restriction. Periscope here.
Inner City Press has written
about this to the head of the
UN Department of Public
Information Alison
Smale, in Sepember
2017 - no answer but a new threat - and this
month, when Smale's DPI
it handing out full access
passes to no-show state media.
No answer at all: pure
censorship, for corruption.
Smale's DPI diverted funds
allocated for Kiswahili,
her staff say, now saying they
are targeted for retaliation.
This is today's UN. Amid UN
bribery scandals, failures in
countries from Cameroon to
Yemen and declining
transparency, today's UN does
not even pretend to have
content neutral rules about
which media get full access
and which are confined to
minders or escorts to cover
the General Assembly.

Inner City Press,
which while it pursue the
story of Macau-based
businessman Ng Lap Seng's
bribery of President of the
General Assembly John Ashe was
evicted by the UN Department
of Public Information from its
office, is STILL confined to
minders as it pursues the new
UN bribery scandal, of Patrick
Ho and Cheikh Gadio
allegedly bribing President of
the General Assembly Sam
Kutesa, and Chad's Idriss
Deby, for CEFC China Energy.

Last week Inner
City Press asked UN DPI where
it is on the list to be
restored to (its) office, and
regain full office - and was
told it is not even on the
list, there is no public list,
the UN can exclude,
permanently, whomever it
wants. This is censorship.